KK, you have offered nothing even remotely probative for secessionism, thus leaving the distasteful inference that your motives must be darker than you suggest. I do hope I am wrong, and you do not share some of the others' foulness when it comes to matters of color and race.
No. If you can't provide any evidence that I'm racist other than your opinion that I've not offered anything of substance to the issue of secession, then I suggest you not make any such foolish claims in the future. If you can't engage in an intelligent discussion then please try to avoid them.
Jake Starkey, like many discerning Americans, probably recognizes that Confederate apologetics is the fleece behind which racists hide. What is the basis of your position? Is it one of social loyalty to a disloyal Confederacy, a legal one, a moral one, or what?
You've previously claimed "right"[eousness] is the basis of your argument. Right to what? I'm not a lawyer. However, I know lawyers who hold both a pro and an anti-secessionist position based on their respective legal views. Lee, prior to becoming a treasonous traitor stated that he believed that secession was contrary to our founding fathers and his ancestors by birth and marriage (e.g. President Washington). I do not believe that a legal discussion of the issue of secession is necessarily racist. The issue of secession is currently quite relevant and applicable in the state in which I live. Notwithstanding, I know that much of what underlies the moral/legal issue is and has historically been racist.
Part of the social disease behind racism is the minimization and denial of the victims. The Confederate overtly and primarily seceded based on racist slavery according to its Declaration of Secession (
Declaration of Causes of Secession). You have minimized and obfuscated this fact and have minimized my representation of the Confederacy as being racists simply based on four states' declaration without providing the others' non-existent declarations. You parroting the mantra that slavery was merely a reason - not the primary and central one - without addressing neither this Declaration, nor the plethora of evidence provide by Jake Starkey, Paperview, Polk, et. al. Such evidence includes, " …the constitution, was … wrong... upon … equality of races.... Our [Confederacy]… is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its … corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the …world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth." -Alexander Stephens. Vice President of the Confederacy, also echoed by neo-Confederates
Your denial is typically demonstrated in your rebuttals which refuse to address the questions which threaten your straw man’s position. Thus, also demonstrates dishonesty and disingenuousness by ignoring the facts.
You uphold the moral right to the Confederate's secession which is amoral and flagrantly hypocritical based on it assertion that the rights and value of whites are greater than those of blacks et. al. Thus, you raise the questions as to your motives (e.g. racism) for this discussion. Your minimization of the plight of the oppressed blacks vis-a-vis the magnification of the consequential judgment (minimal in comparison to the blacks) demonstrates your racists’ values: whites are more important than blacks. Racism is inherent to America's foundation. We wouldn't be the nation that we are without the pretentiously Christian amoral evil of racism which defines our present society and apologetics (veiled or not) for this evil.
Racism and slavery are inseparable to the Confederacy.
Judgment of racism is not necessarily ad hominem when unfleecing wolves. If you genuinely addressed (rather than ignore and obfuscate) counter-evidence, then you would would demonstrate genuiness, lack of hypocirisy, integrity, and sincerity repecting your position. Thus, you'd be on a much higher ground.
